March 26, 2004
Commission Omission
Postemptive demands for preemptive action...
What appears lost on many in the 9/11 commission testimony and aspects related to Iraq is not whether the Administration was predisposed to remove Hussein from power - it clearly was, and frankly, for good reason - but to see starkly contrasted so many who decry pre-emptive war in Iraq, yet are scourging policy makers past and present for a lack of the same pre-emptive effort in Afghanistan.
Are we to somehow believe that the Democrats who are excoriating the Bush administration over Iraq were somehow going to fall behind Bush in heading to invade Afghanistan in early 2001?
Are we to somehow believe that in 1998 the Republican leadership would without question endorse a land invasion in Afghanistan to attack Al Qaeda, and not loudly proclaim 'wag the dog' and decry the move as diversionary from Clinton's impeachment?
The fact of the matter is the political will to use American power to dispose of hostile regimes did not exist prior to 9/11. Some, such as Peggy Noonan, have argued that his is where leadership comes in, and indeed it does. And I'd like to think she's right. But I'm afraid she's not. Partisanship smothers most noble efforts in the crib.
The Bush administration learned this lesson - the Democrat party by it's nature is disinclined to learn it. But who doubts that had nothing been done about Hussein, at some point there would be a commission, with lots of overturned soapboxes for standing and handwringing, loudly declaiming that it was so obvious we should have removed Hussein from power, the signs were there, nothing was done... and all of the reasons given by the Bush administration to remove Saddam from power would have been recycled against it's own inaction. In short, you are damned if you do, and...
EDIT: Just noticed the title of Peggy's column... not sure if I should profess divine inspiration or fall back on great minds thinking alike...
Posted by MEC2 at March 26, 2004 06:42 PM